Syrian Arab Republic Thomas Pierret

Syrian Arab Republic Thomas Pierret To cite this version: Thomas Pierret. Syrian Arab Republic. Sean Yom. Government and Politics of the Middle East and North Africa. Development, Democracy, and Dictatorship. 9th Edition, Routledge, 2019, 9781138354326. hal-02478092 HAL Id: hal-02478092 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02478092 Submitted on 13 Feb 2020 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. 1 2 Syrian Arab Republic Thomas Pierret Syria’s modern history is a tale of continuity and upheavals at once. By 2011, the country had been ruled by the same party, the Ba‘th, and the same family, the Asads, for more than four decades. Yet, this period was far from stable as the country witnessed a socialist “revolution from above”, internal coups and factional struggles, multiple crackdowns against the opposition, local uprisings and a nationwide Islamist insurgency (1979-82), in addition to direct military confrontations and proxy wars with all of the country’s neighbors and the United States. The devastating civil war that followed the 2011 uprising was the most significant break in Syrian history since independence. Although the regime was still in place at the end of the decade, the country had changed beyond recognition. Above a quarter of its prewar population were now refugees abroad, while economy had made a giant leap backwards as a result of large- scale destruction of infrastructure. Once a major player in Middle Eastern politics, Syria had turned into the region’s battlefield, before non-state actors—the rebels, the Islamic State and the Kurdish YPG, then foreign states, carved out zones of influence. By early 2019, Syria was best described as the juxtaposition of three protectorates—a Russian-Iranian one, a Turkish one, and a US one—than as a sovereign state. I. Historical Background Damascus was the center of the vast Umayyad caliphate founded in 661. Subsequently, Syria (known back then as the broader Bilad al-Sham) became a province of successive Muslim empires ruled from Baghdad or Cairo and, after the Ottoman conquest in the sixteenth century, from Istanbul. As Ottoman power began to decline in the eighteenth century, a new class emerged in Syria of urban notables who functioned as intermediaries with Ottoman officials and who would remain political players in Syria well into the twentieth century. In the second half of the 1800s, European encroachment in the Levant contributed in sparking the “Arab renaissance” (nahda). This cultural movement gradually turned into a nationalist one in reaction to Turkish policies such as the “Turkification” implemented after the Young Turk revolution of 1908, which generated in Syria a desire for more representative government and Arab autonomy within the empire. From World War I to the Rise of the Ba‘th Party The Ottoman Empire’s decision to join the Central Powers in World War I was met with British support for an Arab revolt led from the Hijaz by Sharif Hussein and his son Faisal. The revolt was launched in 1916 in return for vague British promises of Arab independence, but London made contrary promises to its French allies in the Sykes-Picot Agreement. Consequently, the Syrian kingdom ruled by Faysal following the 1918 Ottoman withdrawal was occupied by French troops two years later. The “Mandates” granted over the region to France and Britain by the Society of Nations resulted in international borders that were perceived as arbitrary among Syrians, thereby sowing 2 the seeds of irredentist movements. Colonial borders cut off the country from mercantile and cultural links in neighboring areas: Damascus was isolated from what were now Lebanon, Palestine, and Transjordan; Aleppo’s northern hinterland (Antep) and closest access to the sea (Sanjak of Alexandretta, or Hatay) were included in the Republic of Turkey; in the east, the tribes of the Euphrates were separated from the lower, Iraqi part of the valley in spite of kinship ties and similarity of dialect. Inside Syria, French divide-and-rule policies translated into the establishment of five statelets: Alexandretta (before its cession to Turkey in 1939) was carved out for the Turks; the remainder of the coast for the Alawites; the region of Suweida in the south for the Druzes; and the rest of the country was divided between the predominantly Sunni states of Damascus and Aleppo. This division along sectarian or ethnic lines gave particular salience to the concepts of “minorities” and “majorities” that were emerging in the context of nation/state-building and representative politics. Although the major anti-French rebellion that began in 1925 was defeated, unrest convinced Paris to rule indirectly through a parliamentary Syrian republic. In 1936, the Franco-Syrian Treaty recognized the country’s independence and re-unification, but it was only after the Second World War, in 1946, that the last French soldiers withdrew under British pressure. After independence, Syria’s parliamentary system was dominated by politicians who, like President Shukri al-Quwwatli, hailed from the great landed or merchant families that had held local power under the Ottomans and gained nationalist legitimacy from their struggle against the French. These notables coalesced into the rival National Party in Damascus and People’s Party in Aleppo. However, this older generation of leaders came to be regarded by the younger generation as corrupt and unable to deliver on matters of social progress. Humiliating defeat in the first Arab-Israeli war of 1948 struck a first blow to the ruling elite. The following year, a series of three successive military coups eventually brought to power Colonel Adib al-Shishakli, who ruled in an increasingly authoritarian way until another putsch restored the parliamentary system in 1954. In the 1950s, new political forces were rising that distinguished themselves from the notables’ parties by their middle-class leadership, radical ideology, and ambitions to mobilize the masses. Among them was the fascist-leaning Syrian Social National Party (SSNP), which advocated the union of Syria and its neighbors into a “Greater Syria”. The SSNP was banned in 1955 for ordering a political assassination, but it survived and formally reappeared as a regime ally under Bashar al-Asad. On the radical Left, the Communist Party’s popularity benefited the USSR’s denunciation of Western imperialism. Yet, the most successful of the new political forces was the Ba‘th Party, a pan-Arab group established in 1947 by Damascene schoolteachers Michel Aflaq and Salah al-Din al-Bitar. Alliance with agrarian MP Akram al-Hawrani provided the party with a socialist ideology and close ties with the Syrian military, which would soon become the final political arbiter in the country. The Ba‘th steadily increased its share of seats in parliament and influenced the country’s foreign policy, a trend that culminated in 1958 when Syria merged with Gamal Abdel Nasser’s Egypt to form the United Arab Republic (UAR). However, Cairo’s centralist, authoritarian and socialist policies alienated both Ba‘thist leaders and traditional elites, pushing Syria to secede from the UAR in 1961. 3 After one last parliamentary interlude, the Ba‘th came to power through a military coup carried out on March 8, 1963. Built on a narrow base, the regime faced opposition across the whole spectrum of political society, from Nasserites to Islamists to liberals. In order to break out of its isolation, the Ba‘th carried out a “revolution from above” that broke the economic hold of the oligarchy through nationalizations, won the support of peasants with land reform, and created a public sector employing major segments of the middle and working classes. Within the regime, civilian party members were subjugated by their military counterparts, who were themselves divided by power struggles over ideology and personal ambition. Since sectarian affiliations played a prominent role in the construction of rival coalitions, Alawite officers emerged as the strongest contenders. Like members of other rural minorities, Alawite used military careers as a means of social advancement, but they were more numerous than the Druzes and Ismailis. They were also more cohesive than their Sunni counterparts, who were divided along class and regional lines. In 1966, an intra-Ba‘th coup brought to power the radical leftist wing of the party led by Alawite General Salah Jadid, whose stridently anti-Israeli stance backlashed as Syria lost the Golan Heights during the 1967 Six-Day war. Three years later, Jadid was toppled by his Minister of Defense Hafiz al-Asad, who carried out a “Corrective Movement” by placating the Sunni bourgeoisie through limited economic and political liberalization, as well as by toning down the regime’s secularist ambitions. External resources provided by the Soviet Union and Arab Gulf monarchies allowed for the expansion of the state bureaucracy and army, security apparatus (mukhabarat). Asad’s appointment of relatives and largely Alawite personal followers to key positions resulted in the construction of a “presidential monarchy” that concentrated power in the president’s own hands. Decent military showing in the 1973 Arab-Israeli War provided the legitimacy to entrench his leadership. Despite such initially favorable circumstances, Asad soon faced a formidable challenge from the Islamic opposition. Rooted in the traditional urban middle class and at ease in the defunct parliamentary system, the now outlawed Muslim Brotherhood were radically at odds with the country’s new rulers because of their authoritarian, secularist and socialist policies.

Load more